ZODIAC

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Director: David Fincher
Year: 2007

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey, Jr.
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        In the wake of Jake Gyllenhaal's latest crime drama Prisoners (slated for a late September release), I thought I'd revisit one of his best films and, what is contending for my money, as his best overall performance. Now Gyllenhaal, in anything good or bad, puts his heart and soul into many a role. His performance, much like the movie I'm now reviewing, is a tour de force. Zodiac, also a crime drama, portrays him as political cartoonist turned novelist and would be detective Robert Graysmith. While watching Gyllenhaal on screen, you can see many faceted layers to his acting persona. He dives into the proceedings with a feeling of anxiousness, fear (fear of failure, that is), disciplined intensity, and earnestness. The members of the cast that fully accompany him are Mark Ruffalo (plays David Toschi, a proficient police detective with a noticeably high metabolism) and Robert Downey, Jr. (playing a burned out crime reporter who resorts to drugs and alcohol). They also are excellent in their roles and never miss a beat. Other members of the cast that filter in and out include Anthony Edwards, Elias Koteas, and Brian Cox.

        Being a highly dialogue driven movie, Zodiac brings together a lot of reputable actors to keep the film from being boring and repetitive. Its director, David Fincher, excels at dealing with flicks that involve what I like to call, "the violence of the mind". Like in his 1995 hit, Se7en, he'd rather show the aftermath and have you think about what you might have saw instead of having actually seen it. Zodiac is similar to Se7en for a portion of the totality. However, it does show some murders (only about three with much less gore), doesn't concentrate as much on the killer (leans more toward telling the story of the killer's pursuer, especially in the second half), and it provides a lot more detail/insight contained in its script by James Vanderbilt (he wrote The Rundown and Darkness Falls to name a few). Taking in its absorbing 2 and a half hour running time, you can tell that everyone involved wanted to get every last detail just right. As I have stated in previous reviews, putting a true story out on film means honoring the material as much as possible. After reading the background information about Zodiac and viewing it multiple times, I applaud Fincher and company for churning out this highly detailed, rather exhausting masterpiece.

        Playing like two different films in one (the first half is 1969 to 1972 and the obviously noted second half is 1976 to 1991) and showcasing a sort of underwhelming, drab sense of time and place (this is actually very effective), Zodiac depicts true events revolving around the San Francisco Bay Area serial murderer known as well, the "Zodiac" killer. From 1969 to 1972, this person is pursued extensively (partly by newspaper reporters and police inspectors) and eventually never brought to justice. Only a few years later does a nobody cartoonist (who is unbelievably infatuated with the case) reopen things on his own. He thereby threatens to wreck his marriage, fracture his health, worsen his family values, and even expose himself to the mysterious killer by going on TV. The reasoning for all this: he just wants to see the "Zodiac," look at him in the face, and know that he found the right person. Another reason: he feels that no one else cares or wants to capture the vigilant (it might make sense because too much time has passed, this person only killed a few people, and, in the last 5 years, San Francisco had over 200 murders).

       As I said earlier, Zodiac is all about detail. The timelines that are shown in small captions at the bottom of the screen state the date, the place, and even the exact time. Then there is the feel of this exercise. It's no doubt that Fincher's vision was his own but I was somehow reminded of 1976's All The Presidents Men. It's obvious that both films rely heavily on dialogue. And I guess they both sometimes take place in a newsroom. Are they similar in plot? Not really. But the sense of urgency in both pictures accompanied by the eerie musical score (coming in at rare intervals), made me believe that Fincher might have been a little influenced (subconsciously I suppose) by that 1976 Best Picture nominee.

        Anyway, Zodiac was released in early March of 2007. And although it didn't garner one single Academy Award nomination, I still consider it one of the 5 best films of said year. With keen, meticulous direction and dynamic acting from the leads, this vehicle sweeps you into its superior, linear narrative. It really puts the "true" into true story. Next to the similar, yet more gruesome Se7en and his other dialogue driven masterpiece being The Social Network, this is David Fincher's finest hour. Overall, Zodiac is a treasure and a sure "sign" of movie greatness.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Bottom line: Zodiac is a masterpiece. The writing is flawless, the acting is terrifyingly well done, and the movie's aftermath is thought-provoking disturbance on the viewers mind. This is no slasher piece or dull biopic, but a genuine, bona fide tour de force brought to you by no other than the genius and gifted director David Fincher. Zodiac has a reserved spot on my top twenty films of all time list.

THE FAMILY

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Luc Besson
Year: 2013
Cast: Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones
Genre: Action/Comedy/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        On a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, I decided to take in a screening of the aptly titled, The Family. As I viewed this hollow, shallow, and tired exercise in modern filmmaking, I asked myself a simple yet loaded question: does Robert De Niro really need to be in another mob fest? My answer: an emphatic no. With characters that have not an ounce of human compassion and scenes of unnecessarily brutal violence (I'm sure even mobsters exhibit a small ounce of decent human behavior unlike the cast in this dreck), this thing actually still wants you to laugh with it as well. So, is it a black comedy? Oh no. It's too dumbfounded to be that. Fargo is a black comedy. Dr. Strangelove is a black comedy. The Family couldn't tie their shoes, that's for darn sure. Truth be told, I don't really know what kind of film this is. I have no idea what it tries to be. The most shocking thing is that every rote scene turns extremely dark toward the last half. Therefore, I figured there was no point in having any of the characters try to extract laughs from the audience in the first place. This is a film you see once and that's it. I have no doubt in my mind that its box office status will drop like a heavy stone in a deep body of water.

        Taking place in a small town near France and based on the 2010 novel called Badfellas (wow, there's an original title!) by Tonino Benacquista, The Family is about De Niro's mafia boss character (Giovanni Maznoni), his wife (Maggie played by Michelle Pfeiffer who, I guess, gives this flick's strongest performance), and their two children (newcomer John D'Leo and Glee star Dianna Agron). Based on previous events in which Maznoni snitches on a crime kingpin thereby sending said person to prison, De Niro's clan (now going under the last name Blake) goes into a witness protection program. They end up living near Normandy, France and are being watched and/or supervised by an FBI agent named Robert Stansfield (played by Tommy Lee Jones, who deserves better). As I stated earlier, The Family undercuts scenes of brutal beatings with moderate sitcom humor until it goes into deeper, darker territory. To say that this picture is uneven is a gigantic understatement. The fact that it references De Niro's 1990 acting triumph Goodfellas is insulting and it turns The Family into a parody rather than a real movie.

        All in all, I guess what boggles my mind is why Martin Scorsese agreed to produce a mafia vehicle directed by the guy who wrote The Transporter flicks (Luc Beeson, who always seems to bring a slick, empty look to the proceedings). What's even more puzzling is the fact that Tommy Lee Jones (Stansfield) signed on to play such a nothing role as the sad sack who watches over De Niro's character. Ultimately, The Family is an uninspired mess. It's an out-of-place popcorn flick (the violent bloodbath toward the film's conclusion reminded me of one of the Die Hard films) and a startlingly un-human mix of mob comedy and fledgling drama. Yes, the acting is decent and the direction is numbingly serviceable. But by the time the final credits roll, you'll realize how disposable it is. In its 112 minute running time, all the events that took place could easily recycle themselves many times over. Translation: there is no need to see this, whatsoever. As I walked out the theater, I realized that I'm fortunate to not be a part of a "family" like this.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take (and a Video Review) On THE CONJURING

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: James Wan
Year: 2013
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Ron Livingston
Genre: Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        There are different types of scary filmmaking. In a film like Nightmare on Elm Street, not only is the viewer haunted visually, but also mentally; it’s torture going on in your mind. In a film like Halloween (the original, people), the viewer is horrified with gruesome violence and develops a sense of responsibility for the damsel in distress, ultimately putting him/herself in the victim’s position, which creates a feeling of insecurity. In a film like The Shining, the viewer becomes simply fascinated and curious with the insane nature that the main character develops, and ultimately lacks the ability to genuinely understand and sympathize with the antagonist, which creates a sense of terror. When you watch a film like Zodiac, even though it isn’t a textbook horror film, since the movie is so brilliantly made, the mere idea and dialogue that concerns the killer is enough to disturb and mentally harm. If I’m making any of these scary movies sound unappealing, I apologize because I haven’t done my job as a critic; these are all incredible and terrifying films that deserve the utmost caliber of critical recommendation. And now the latest “scary” movie out in theaters is The Conjuring. The most upsetting thing about it is that I can’t describe what exact category of scary it qualifies for, or how it manages to do it. This is because it isn’t, and it doesn’t. The Conjuring is, at best, a tense film that creates scary situations, but it isn’t altogether scary.

        Stop me when this sounds familiar. A family moves out in the middle of nowhere to a house that happens to be infested with demonic souls. Did I hear stop? Well, I should’ve. This movie rips off almost every supernatural horror movie in the cinematic industry. It’s main idea steals quite a bit from The Exorcist; it’s set up and plot rips off The Amityville Horror; and for quite a large amount of time, most of the scenes look like outtakes from Paranormal Activity. Then, a couple who are expert paranormal scientists (or something like that) are sought out for help by the mother who senses that things are going wrong. Then after, a crew organized by the expert couple orchestrate cameras and alarms that are ready to capture proof of the supernatural existence (ripping off Poltergeist) in the house in order to prove the house worthy of a legitimate exorcism. Ultimately, the movie spends a lot of its amount of time on its build up: identifying the character’s roles in each others lives, setting up scenes for foreshadow, and building the plot. It does an adequate job with all of this, too, and it's not all completely uninteresting. What’s unfortunate is, thereafter, it never takes off and relies on systematic, jolting scares that feel as if they were taken right off of the artificial scare assembly line (think scare scenes from Monsters Inc., only more adult and supernatural), though they do trigger some seat jumping moments. A lot of those seat jumping moments, though, rip off films such as What Lies Beneath, The Sixth Sense, The Haunting, The Evil Dead, The Changeling, The Messengers, and in some form, The Skeleton Key.

        For a modern horror movie (as we know how most of those go...), the cast erects no complaints from this critic. I generally enjoy Vera Farmiga’s screen presence, and she contributes greatly to the tense atmosphere that was crucial that the movie created. She channeled some of her inner Norma Bates (if you watch the show). Ron Livingston is well cast; he looks the part, and he’s ultimately believable as the father who desperately wants his family ridden of the horrible curse that is upon them. Everyone else is great, too, which is why I believe this movie is not a complete waste of time. 

        If you’re not too knowledgable of iconic camerawork, then you’ll learn a lot from The Conjuring. Countless camera-worked scenes channel some of Stanley Kubrick’s films, Martin Scorsese’s films, and a new mix of the two that makes the film more unique and enjoyable, despite the fact that it’s not the director’s own. Also, the use of wide lenses don’t go to waste; it’s shot in a way that kept me thinking that maybe this had something unique to offer, but in hindsight, camerawork can't save a tired, recycled script.

        Similar to a more recent film, World War Z, the ending feels horribly rushed and horribly Hollywood. It made me hang my head, roll my eyes, and wish under my breath that they don’t make a sequel. In fact, on the ride home, I said to my fellow critic and uncle, “Well, it was based on true case files, so there shouldn’t be a sequel.” Yeah, there shouldn’t be, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is. This is a movie that didn’t feel much like a traditional horror movie; it built up for quite a long time, then let the viewer down and wallowed in excessiveness for a while, then just closed shop with the customers happy (it’s structured really awkwardly). Viewers should have protection before they watch this movie. Instead of helmets and shoulder pads, I suggest watching classic horror movies such as the ones mentioned above, so that they don’t fall prey to the easy style of copycat that the script and directional style so desperately rely on, and are fueled by. The Conjuring is a film that won’t be on either my “Worst of 2013” or “Best of 2013” list. It’s right in the middle; it’s got some assets, and it’s got some downfalls, so at least it’s not a complete bomb. I hope that director James Wan starts taming his skills of direction, and making them his own, because I don’t know how many more unoriginal, unspectacular horror (particularly supernatural) movies I can sit through. My greatest piece of advice to him is to watch some more classical horror movies, find a book on how to make a film original, and have a long talk and cup of coffee with Tim Burton. I think the last mentioned idea will do him some serious good.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Take On THE CONJURING

Click HERE To Watch The Video on YouTube

WTWTW (9/13/13)

What To Watch This Weekend (9/13/13)

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

★★★ ½ (Cole)

Director David Fincher (notorious for ingenious and masterful titles such as Zodiac and The Social Network) teamed up with author Stieg Larsson in 2011 to create a brutal, horrifying, and totally involving American masterpiece titled The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara star here in a mystery-thriller based upon a journalist and young computer hacker who team up to discover the hidden secrets behind a girl who went missing forty years ago. This film is stimulating in every sense, but the two big ones that stick out to me is intellectually and mystifyingly. Like Zodiac, this movie keeps thoughts pumping through your head from scene one until the day you forget that you ever saw it (which, based on the impression this makes, won’t be soon after your first viewing). The only thing that detains it from being a bona fide four star rating may be that it tries to sell itself to be a little too intricate at times, but the end product overrides the negative aspect almost entirely. Whether to experience electrifying intensity or undeniable curiosity, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will not disappoint; with such two brilliant minds as Larsson’s and Fincher’s, investing your time is a wise decision.

MPAA Rating: R
Available on Netflix Instant Streaming

Percy Jackson & Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

★★★ (Cole)

“Back again” at Redbox, I thought that I’d share what respect I do have for the first film in the “Percy Jackson” series. Clever, original, and totally appropriate, this can make family movie night a real treat for all members. Whatever you’re looking for is here; good effects, a satisfying script, and intellectual treatment to Greek Mythology. Just don’t rely on the acting, because while it’s good enough, it’s not quite stellar. Beware of the sequel, though. Yowsa!

MPAA Rating: PG
Cost: $1.20 (At Redbox)

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

★★★ (Jesse)

Kurt Russell, doing his best John Wayne impersonation, plays the befuddled action hero Jack Burton in the 1986 cult favorite Big Trouble in Little China.  With director John Carpenter channeling his inner Raiders of the Lost Ark, this is a slam bang, shoot em' up, martial arts flick that deals with black magic in an over-the-top, yet effective way. Taking place in San Francisco's Chinatown (which comes off as dark, gloomy, and dangerous) and a plot that kicks in right from the get-go, "Trouble" involves the rescuing of a woman (Miao Yen played by Suzee Pai) with green eyes who has been captured by a sorcerer (the creepy Lo Pan played by James Hong). The evil sorcerer, in question, needs this woman to make him look young again by breaking a sacred, ancient curse (the dude looks 100 years old and then some). Initially a box office failure, Big Trouble in Little China became beloved and cherished by moviegoers with each passing year. If you’re an action junkie, this film is satisfactory on all levels. Some people might argue that "Trouble" doesn't give the actors time to breathe and whizzes them from one dark set piece to the next. I say this mid 80's classic gets away with it. Toward its climatic fight scenes between good and evil, Russell's character says, "may the wings of liberty never lose a feather." Translation: in years to come, may this flick never lose the power to entertain.

MPAA Rating: R
Available for $2.99 on Xfinity on Demand

Christine (1983)

★★★ (Jesse)

After churning out classics like Halloween, Escape From New York, and The Thing, director John Carpenter scored again with the effectively unsettling Christine. Based on a Stephen King novel of the same name, this is a flick about a car (1957 red Plymouth Fury) possessed by evil spirits and the dorky teenager whose life steadily changes after he purchases it. Keith Gordan (no longer an actor, now a director) plays the said character (Arnold Cunningham) extremely well. He does a 180, going from shy, self loathing high school geek to remorseless bad boy (basically he changes his persona as the car becomes more and more evil). Despite plot holes that come in small doses, an underutilized Harry Dean Stanton (he does great supporting work as detective Rudy Junkins), and a final 15 minutes that drag a bit, this is still incredibly solid direction from Carpenter. The soundtrack (which he also wrote) is eerie synthesizer magic and most of the players in the main cast have a hard, cynical edge to them. Based on the aforementioned attributes, this film, for me, is quintessential 80's horror fare. Look for the scene in which Christine repairs herself after being vandalized by nasty high school bullies. It gives new meaning to the term "show me".

MPAA Rating: R
Available at Your Local Video Store

-All Reviews Written by Cole Pollyea & Jesse Burleson

LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Lee Daniels

Year: 2013

Cast: Forest Whittaker, Oprah Winfrey, John Cusack

Genre: Biography/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Considering that it’s a historically significant movie event with an all-star cast, Lee Daniels’ The Butler has a lot to live up to. It’s my duty as a film critic to formulate a knowledgeable summary of the quality of the film and pass it on, but “The Butler” is one I’m having a hard time with because of how wide-ranging this movie is. I can almost guarantee that no single person will formulate the very same judgement, but I’ll share mine anyhow. “The Butler” is a movie that, while it sometimes contains scattershot narrating that may offset the viewer, ultimately tells an applaud worthy story that captures quite a bit of cinematic and historical importance all the while exercising its cast effectively.

        “The Butler” chronicles the lives of a White House black servant’s family and his struggles throughout his long life. It begins with the tragic death of his father and continues to chronicle his endeavors in a mostly heavy handed manner. While it isn’t a bone-deep character study, the movie tries hard to the point where one might say that it’s good enough. The above mentioned wavering narrative had me pointing out flaws, but what really saves it is how passionately Forest Whittaker commands the screen. As the viewer, I could occasionally sense the passion he emitted while attempting to (and succeeding at) emoting in crucial scenes that, without his acting prowess, would have otherwise suffered.

        I went to the theater with my grandmother, a woman who lived through the time of this story, and she didn’t love it; neither did I. Ultimately, it’s a movie that is never fully engaging, though it really should be. Out of all of the movies we’ve seen this year, The Great Gatsby was our favorite, if for no other reason, then because of how involving it was. While Lee Daniels’ The Butler is neither of those things, it still contains enough good qualities to get my recommendation, despite the fact that it’s not as potent as it probably should be.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

CROOKLYN

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Spike Lee
Year: 1994
Cast: Delroy Lindo, Alfre Woodard, Zelda Harris
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        The closing credits of Spike Lee's 1994 film Crooklyn state that what we saw was a work of fiction. They also state that Crooklyn had more than one writer, and those writers (Lee and his real life brother and sister) drew some of their inspiration from their own lives growing up in a low-rent Brooklyn neighborhood. If this is the case, and the film is not exactly a true story, then after a recent viewing, I started to wonder for what reason it was made. Now granted, Spike Lee always has good intentions. And most of the time he gets energetic performances from his cast. However, in Crooklyn's case, the material he is saddled with (the story and the monotonous, yet accurate script) is entirely lightweight, and it doesn't have the strength to fill a two hour-plus exercise. Whatever conflicts that occur between the characters (characters that fade in and out of the proceedings) are never fully realized and resolved. The one event or tragedy that occurs toward the film's conclusion does not fully beef up any dramatic momentum and most of the scenes involving the main family depicted feel tedious and in serious need of editing. In essence, Crooklyn would have been more effective as a side plot of Lee's family childhood included in a TV special/documentary about his life as a director. What came out in 1994, though, is an authentic, yet unnecessary portrayal of a family of 5 kids (four boys, one girl) living in Brooklyn, NY in the summer of 1973.

        Using many unknown child actors and casting himself as a neighborhood glue sniffing junkie, Lee shoots a film that follows the lives of the fictional family, the Carmichaels. They consists of a hard working school teacher (an always tough-as-nails Alfre Woodard), her calming, hard-up musician husband (with this film and Lee's Clockers, Delroy Lindo is now one of my true acting heroes), and their five children (the film slowly begins to put its main focus on the only daughter in group being Troy, played with confidence by Zelda Harris). Although they are the main tenants of the building they are living in, they are struggling to make ends meet (financially) and Carolyn Carmichael (Woodard), being the sole provider, puts a strain on the family dynamic. She and Woody Carmichael (Lindo) fight and argue because he is not able to make any money playing his music (he's a piano player and composer). Crooklyn, also in the smallest detail, takes a look at some of the other people that live on the same block as the Carmichaels. They are side characters that don't get a lot of screen time to establish themselves, let alone add to the workings of the plot (a plot that's very thin skinned). As I stated a couple sentences ago, watching this exercise, you begin to realize that the young Troy becomes the focal point of the movie in general. It's not entirely known upfront, but by the last twenty minutes or so, you understand why. By then it's too late because too much running time is passed and not enough has happened. If the whole entire film focused on this little girl, I think it might've worked. I stress the word might've.

        When it's all said and done, this is a harmless motion picture that seemed close to Lee's heart. I don't think it's a bad film by any means. I just feel that the subject matter wasn't deep enough or potent enough to engage with an audience seeking entertainment value or, for lack of a better word, excitement. Yes, the period detail is pretty solid with the soundtrack being comprised of some 70's classics and a few rap tunes. The opening credit sequence is excellent, depicting a normal routine of childhood antics (double dutch jump rope, tag, street races, etc.) on a hot summer day in NYC. And the closing credits are a delight leading with an intro by Soul Train creator Don Cornelius followed by a dance sequence on said TV show. But, in between, the movie glides by without really saying anything or provoking any deep meaning. So my high end analysis is this: instead of watching people's lives on screen, the only way to really embrace this film is by being in that place and time and actually inhabiting some form of their existence. If you lived in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood back in 1973, this flick might be your cup of tea. If you didn't, decided to take in a viewing, and wanted to immerse yourself in the world of Crooklyn, by hook or "crook", you'll ultimately feel cheated based upon what you just saw.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

DARK BLUE

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Director: Ron Shelton
Year: 2002
Cast: Kurt Russell, Ving Rhames, Scott Speedman
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        I have always been a big Kurt Russell fan. He plays anti-heroes, bumbling superheroes, and the everyman character to perfection. Yet, until Dark Blue, I never saw him as a serious dramatic actor who could contend for, say, an Oscar. Now granted, Kurt didn't get nominated for his turn as a corrupt L.A.P.D. cop in the movie I'm writing this review on; but he should have. His performance has many more layers than what we're used to seeing from a once famed child actor. What can I say? As Sergeant Eldon Perry, he is flat out volcanic. Watching him on screen, you feel as if he's acting for his life. I was blown away. Not only is this his best performance ever, but the film outside of Russell, is fantastic as well. Its director, Ron Shelton (White Man Can't Jump, Tin Cup), is not known for shooting cop flicks. He's more your lessons-learned-through-sports movie guy. He does, however, in this exercise, know the darkest parts of L.A., and he knows how to get his actors to say what they mean and mean what they say. Let's be honest, going into the theater back in 2003, I didn't think a guy who played Elvis and a director who made Bull Durham could deliver a gritty, absorbing, and overwhelmingly solid cop thriller. I have to admit I was mistaken and pleasantly surprised at the same time.

        Now Dark Blue does come off as a little confusing in the first 10-15 minutes. But thereafter, it settles down to tell its story in a brilliant sort of way that an audience member can not think too hard and be massively entertained at the same time. Based on a short story by crime novelist James Ellroy, concerning the famous Rodney King trial, and serving as a backdrop to the L.A. riots of 1992, Dark Blue makes its case as a character study for Russell, his superior officer (commander Jack Van Meter played Brendan Gleeson who specializes in cold, heartless types), and his nervous young partner (detective Bobby Keough played by Underworld's Scott Speedman). Russell's character and Speedman's character take orders from Van Meter who, on the side, has two street thugs that regularly steal and murder for him (the murders aren't the main intention, it's about the money). In return, he lets them stay out of jail, therefore putting the burden of having said detectives (Keough and Perry) find, shoot, and arrest similar suspects who had nothing to do with the crimes. As the film carries on, Perry (Russell) along with Keough (Speedman) have epiphanies and start to question their overall motives. Meanwhile, assistant chief Arthur Holland (played by a powerfully gentle Ving Rhames) is trying to crack the whole internal investigation wide open and expose any corrupt doings within the department. 

        This is a smooth, intricately woven plot machine. As I viewed it for a second time, I was heavily reminded of 2001's Training Day. Both films are similar in their examination of the misguided, fallen nature of L.A.'s finest. In terms of the lead, Russell plays a sort of less nastier version of Denzel Washington's Alonzo Harris. Even the endings of these films seem sort of familiar. Both actors in each movie spout off soliloquies and speeches when their vehicles reach their conclusions. The difference with Dark Blue is that it's a lot less bloody and it deals more with moral issues minus the over-the-top gratuitous violence (just call it Training Day lite). Yes, Training Day is also very good. But "Blue" goes deeper and exhausts you as the viewer in different, more thought-provoking ways. 

        One of my favorite things I like to do as a critic is find motion pictures that are vastly underrated and painfully overlooked by other critics and the movie going public. Dark Blue may be one of the most underrated films I have ever seen. It came out at the wrong time of the year (March of 2003), wasn't marketed terribly well, and, as a result, tanked at the box office. The fact that it hasn't grown a mild cult following also has me scratching my head. Bottom line: If you haven't seen this masterpiece, please do so. It makes you question how police work gets done, it forecasts a harrowing sense of dread from the opening scene re-shown an hour and a half later, it has sequences in which Ron Shelton puts you right in the middle of L.A.'s terrifying South Central mind field, and it has Russell plowing his way through the movie like a bull in a china shop. All in all, Dark Blue is a gem, a revelation, and one "dark" film indeed.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

MO' BETTER BLUES

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Spike Lee
Year: 1990
Cast: Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes, Spike Lee
Genre: Drama/Music
MPAA Rating: R

        Director Spike Lee explores different atypical portions of reality in each one of his films. In 25th Hour, he dove into post 9/11, crime riddled NYC. In Clockers, he divulged life of 24 hour drug pushers and cops in “the projects”. In Mo’ Better Blues, he introduces the life of a self-centered jazz player who tends to have problems with relationships. I went into this movie thinking I was going to enjoy it (if for no other reason) because I, too, am a jazz musician. When I realized that this film isn’t about jazz at all, I was taken aback but I wasn’t aggravated. I was interested. Mo’ Better Blues clearly isn’t the most entertaining film and it definitely has a lot of flaws. Despite this, it is a thoughtful, relatively well done character study that manages to incorporate a lot of immersive musicality (kudos' to Lee’s father) and one that packs in a great performance. That’s why I like and recommend Mo’ Better Blues.

        It's evident why Spike Lee is known as a director and not an actor. Every scene that he was in suffered unless Denzel Washington took over (which he did quite a bit). He either tries to overplay his role, or just doesn’t know how to do it at all because the scenes that centered mainly around his character were just plain laughable. If I were him, I would’ve muttered my line, and looked over at Denzel to finish up, because Lee lacks serious acting chops. But then, one of the flaws of this film, besides Lee’s attempt to act, is how the story relies on Washington to do the heavy lifting. Recasting (Lee) or getting some other heavy-hitting actors to carry out some scenes were all options to better this film by a great deal.

        But overall, this movie is one that requires a lot of thought for the main character. Though his actions may not make sense at times, I felt like I knew Bleak (Washington) very well. The movie does a nice job of not making him come off as a total jerk; I felt like he was victimized. I empathized with him. That’s more than what I can say for other of Lee’s works that, while they may be less flawed, aren’t necessarily better. While it does take a little while to get there, the conclusion to this thing is a brilliant correspondence with the opening scene; it provokes thought, comparison, and wonder. It resonates, to be sure. It isn’t a big twist, but it sure is enough to cap off a solid entry into Spike Lee’s filmmaking endeavors.

-Written by Cole Pollyea